Talk:Yeager type
Copied from Votes for Deletion Keep, establishing screencap should be found -- designation may be based on the name of the vessel we have seen, but so is Centaur type. Simple clarification (as I have now done) should be enough. It's like the Daedalus class dichotomy... -- Michael Warren 16:11, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :my issue is that, since there was another starship Yeager in existence very shortly before the "Yeager-type" one, i think that it is not only unlikely this could be the class name, but flat out counterindicated. shouldn't this be at " " then, since we are all but certain that there is no such designation as Yeager-class? Besides, all of the canon data about the vessel currently resides at .. is another article containing mostly Technical Manual info for the ship type/class really indicated? Also at issue here is the question of why we should be choosing class names for classes that havent been name. "Yeager class" is not mentioned onscreen. It is not mentioned in any 'official' reference.. it doesnt even appear in any published work.. it is simply a name used by websites. Should we start on , "Shelley class" or "Avenger class" next, while we are exercising our ability to devise new data without any canon sources?--Captain Mike K. Bartel ::#On the first point, the Yeager was hastily constructed. If the other Yeager, the Steamrunner, was lost at the Battle of Sector 001 (which seems likely), it isn't unreasonable for the first of the kitbashes to be given its name, considering the quick turnaround time. ::#I would prefer not to get everyone confused between type and class (personally, I think the Centaur is more worthy of the class distinction than the Yeager, since it seems like a proper class in its own right, rather than a kitbash), so all should be under 'class', rather than 'type'. It can be explained by calling it a 'preliminary' class designation (as I have done) - after all, there is the chance it would become a proper class following the war, provided any of them survive. ::#Why not? Redundancy of data can be good - one article may be more suited to be linked elsewhere than the other. -- Michael Warren 16:44, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Well I'm reading this now, but I've already made some 'type' changes to the article, and duplicated the data. You are right redundancy isnt a bad thing. However, I want to be very clear that I dislike creating class designations based on circumstantial data. If we don't know the class, we shouldn't call it "Yeager-class." I find it really unlikely that every starship we see ends up being the prototype of its line, and would like to ensure that this type of confusion is not disseminated unto readers.. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:52, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) ---- First off, do you have issue with the Yeager type title? I think its a good solution, along the lines of using Centaur type instead of Centaur class.. i really don't want to believe that every class unknown ship is the prototype of its line, there for these ships don't really need a "class" designation, but the "type" pages serve the purpose their class page would.. to collect data about that ship type. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:03, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :No, I don't (except for the minor possibility of confusion that may arise), but there is the problem of having to call it something. And I'm much more comfortable with giving it a preliminary designation than having an article called "Excelsior-Constitution class hybrid-variant" for the "Shelley class" (which does already exist, BTW :D) or "Three-nacelled Excelsior-class variant" for the 'Trident' type. If we only see one or two of these vessels, it makes sense that the class designation we use would be based on the first one we saw. It doesn't mean Starfleet has it as the first of its type, but to us, with our limited data, it is. -- Michael Warren 17:10, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) Well, I agree it is confusing, but I am disturbed by the fact that we are attempting to relay only canonical starship data, yet many fans on the internet are devising their own class names and specifications for 'uncertain' ships, and its a little daunting to sort out the truth. But I far prefer Yeager-type over Yeager-class, simply because if Yeager-class is actually incorrect as a designation, the use of Yeager-type term will help to stop this non-canon data from propogating here. And there is a Shelley class article. I'm not sure if i want to open that can of worms, since Shelley-class is a purely fandom (and internet) creation.. i believe Mark Nguyen originated it on Flare. We all created a class name or two, i called the two-nacelle and saucer Const'ition vari'ant the Constant ;) .. some call the Centaur the Baracas-class, the one you called the Trident-class, athers assign as the Medusa-class, still others creating RPGs for Last Unicorn believed it to be the Chimera-class. See my head spinning? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:17, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :I do indeed. However, the names you state don't have a canon link at all. These ones do (Trident might not, hence why I stated it the way I did). I agree with using the 'type' classification in this event, then. If we use the 'type' designation, we can reduce those variant classes to zero (moving "Shelley class" to Curry type might be a good thing to do in that case). But I draw the line at having a Raging Queen-type article... :D -- Michael Warren 17:24, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) I've seen a few Raging Queen Type Articles here!!! :D I've been thinking about the other Frankenstein ships (and I desperately want to believe that, even though the Tech Manual said SOME were hasty shipbashes, that perhaps a few were proper classes in their own right having thier glory days in the 2350s and 2360s before the war drums began. I believe this adds dramatic plausibility to the overall scheme of things, but it is not a strictly canon assumption. So yes, I do support the use of "general" terms when speaking of which ships were scrounge jobs that were newly built, and which were old ships brought back into service. If we don't know which ships the DS9 TM referred to with that note, we should be careful to not give a ship that description (as a kitbash). Basically, just try to not bias ourselves into thinking that one DS9 TM passage is the canon truth about all those vessels. BTW, I think that leaving off the originator classes from article titles would be a good thing.. rather than "Excelsior class starship variant" we could put "medium cruiser class" or the like, something to do with the ship itself, not the main models it was derived from. I wouldn't be inclined to call a Constellation or Miranda a "Constitution variant" if i knew what type they were --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:37, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::What I see here I see on a lot of the better fandom sites: a lack of faith in our readers. Giving the user something to work with, information based on which he/she can make things out for themselves, is much more important than the title. Pick a title, then explain to the reader why you picked it. Readers are quite intelligent enough to make out for themselves wether they prefer Yaeger class or type. So please don't argue about not wanting to confuse the readers, because the only way to confuse them, is leaving them in the dark. ::That being said, I would suggest the most neutral option, since we know almost nothing about this vessel. The way it is seems okay: Yaeger type, with enough information about why that tile was chosen. I've added a small note about the class issue leading here, and that I think is enough. Now people can discern the best option for themselves. -- Redge 01:41, 29 Jul 2004 (CEST)